In the aftermath of the devastating 2024 hurricane season, our initial thought was that the suggested increase in Holmes Beach stormwater fees is a small price to pay. However, research suggests that more time is needed to study the issue.
First, increased rates do not necessarily guarantee the most effective stormwater mitigation. Land acquisition for pumps and reservoirs has been identified as a major component of stormwater management and has been skillfully managed by other Florida cities. Cape Canaveral is a role model for stormwater planning and grant utilization. St. Petersburg has the Shore Acres Resiliency Infrastructure Project where they are currently using a $1 million state grant towards another pump construction.
While Holmes Beach had a $12 million reserve, there were available properties on the market in the $1-2 million range that could have provided the needed space.
Second, in 2020, former Manatee County Commissioner Joe McClash wrote “Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee Would Be an Unfair Tax.” He explained that the fair way of calculation is by usage. Holmes Beach calculates using lot area, while many Florida municipalities calculate using impervious coverage. It is the impervious surfaces which displace the water and more fairly represent the impact.
In Holmes Beach, commercial properties are allowed 70% impervious coverage; residential properties are allowed 40%, yet the fees are calculated at the same rate for all “real property.”
We have properties which have maxed out their impervious area, elevated their lots and pools and installed walls. All impacts are not created equal.
Third, Mr. McClash mentioned how governments themselves contribute when they make special exceptions such as rezones which increase densities. Holmes Beach has honored multiple rezones despite resident opposition. We know firsthand that, despite code, excessive landfill is sometimes brought in and required swales are omitted. The City Center project elevated parts of Marina Drive by a foot, and now, property owners are being charged to remedy the additional flooding that it most assuredly created.
Fourth, contrary to the thought that this is the perfect time for presenting this increase, it may contribute one more layer to the litany of reasons for the exodus of residents.
Urgency does not necessarily make the most productive outcomes. Now may be the opportunity to make fees more appropriately “user based.” Perhaps approving the 4.95% rather than 9% now would be a modification that would allow the city time to address the need for calculations based on impervious coverage rather than lot area.
Dick and Margie Motzer
Holmes Beach
